Social Engineering Blogs

An Aggregator for Blogs About Social Engineering and Related Fields

Revisiting Genuine vs Fake Emotions

A week ago we asked readers to look at the two videos and weigh in with their thoughts as to who was telling the truth, who was lying and why.

Many people shared meaningful thoughts and opinions and almost everyone agreed that the first video of a woman pleading for her daughter’s return seem to be fabricated, while the second video seemed much more genuine.

In fact, the first video was of a Canadian women named Penny Boudreau who later admitted to strangling her own daughter and was sentenced to life in prison. Her daughter, who was only 12 years old, was a victim at her own mother’s hands. The video you saw below was taken before Penny had admitted to the murder.

What is particularly interesting is that throughout the interview, you see an expression more resembling fear than of sadness. Penny’s brows are not pulled up and together, but are raised creating horizontal lines across the forehead:

Compare Boudreau’s expression of emotion to that of the father of a missing boy in the video below. You can see genuine sadness throughout the press conference, as his brows are up and together:

In addition, in the Boudreau video, you see her fidgeting a lot and her eyes darting back and forth. She often puts her hands on her face and rubs her face, while the man in the second video doesn’t do that at all. Remember, that fidgeting and eye gaze on it’s own cannot be a reliable sign of lying unless compared to a baseline.

Perhaps Boudreau acts like this normally, but she seemed very tense and obviously fearful of something, perhaps of getting caught. Our hearts go out to the father in the second video. His emotions are raw, almost uncontrollable at times and palpable. You truly feel his pain when watching his speak about his missing son.

Missed watching the original videos? Take a look at the original post here

Pentagon Research: Narratives Negate Violence?

BBC has reported on the Pentagon’s growing interest in the neurobiology of political violence, a relatively new field that combines neuroscience with more traditional social science-based approaches to understanding human behavior.

One program by Darpa is working on a project, Narrative Networks, that tries to “understand how narratives influence human thoughts and behavior, then apply those findings to a security context in order to address security challenges such as radicalization, violent social mobilization, insurgency and terrorism, and conflict prevention and resolution,” according to William Casebeer, the Darpa official leading the work.

If US officials had a device that could advise them what to say, generating a story based on a scientific understanding of the brain’s inner workings to soothe tempers and calm the mood of the population, would it be beneficial to not only the US, but the world?  It can be and is considered by some to be a nonviolent way to create change.

Dr. David Matsumoto, Director of  Humintell & the Director of the Culture and Emotion Research Laboratory at SFSU, has been recruited by another Pentagon initiative, Minerva.  His mission is to conduct scientific research on the role of emotions in inciting political violence.

Dr. Matsumoto and his colleagues are doing this by studying the facial expressions and language used by political leaders to see if those can be used as predictors to  future violence.  He states,

“I think that one of the most logical direct applications of this kind of finding and this line of research [is] to develop sensors that can watch, either monitor the words that are being spoken and/or the non-verbal behaviors that are expressive of those emotions,” he says of the Pentagon’s interest in his work. “I think the development of sensors like that … would be sort of an early warning signal or system [to detect violence].”

Should we celebrate the non-violent, non-confrontational path the government is taking in their effort to ease tensions and violence among the world’s people?

The article goes on to ask a more fundamental and perhaps important question, which is whether such research will actually help the Pentagon convince people that the US military is really there to help them.

“None of the work we are doing, nor anyone else I know in the Narrative Networks group, is about increasing the ability of soldiers or sailors to kill people or to brainwash people,” says Paul Zak, a professor at Claremont Graduate University, who specializes in neuroeconomics, and whose work has been funded by the Darpa program.

Read Montague, a neuroscientist at the Virginia Tech Carilion Research Institute and also a part of the Darpa Narrative Networks Project states,

“I see a device coming that’s going to make suggestions to you, like, a, this situation is getting tense, and, b, here are things you need to do now, I’ll help you as you start talking.  That could be really useful.”

What do you think?  Could this research be beneficial in curbing violent acts?

See What You’ve Been Missing! Q & A

There is a growing interest in the fields of nonverbal communication and emotion recognition, specifically microexpressions.

People interested in the  field of deception detection and facial expressions of emotion as well as nonverbal communication skills and are asking how do I apply these types of techniques in the real world?  What types of professions is this applicable for?

Well, Psychology Today has answered that call with a review of a new book Nonverbal Communication:  Science and Applications written by Humintell’s Dr. David Matsumoto and Dr. Hyi Sung Hwang as well as SUNY Buffalo’s Dr. Mark Frank.

The article goes on to write that the new book blends nonverbal communication research with how professionals have used this knowledge to excel in their profession.  This includes law, negotiation, medical, marketing and many more…

It includes research chapters with ample citations that are complimented later on in the book with chapters on personal reflections of professionals that can be applied to the reader regardless of their profession.

 Jeff Thompson, author of the article interviewed Dr. Matsumoto:

Q:  To start things off, why did you, along with Mark Frank and Hyi Sung Hwang, write this book?

A:  [DM] We created this book because there was a gap in the available books. Many are for scientists that don’t really translate how the scientific work can be translated into practice. Others are by practitioners, with sometimes little or no nod to the science, and in some cases discussing NVBs that have not been validated. We wrote this book so that scientists could appreciate the practical use of research, and practitioners could appreciate the science behind validated NVB indicators.

Q:  You explain the functions of nonverbal communication as it being able to 1) define communication, 2) regulate verbal communication, and 3) be the message itself.  Can you explain what these mean?

A:  [DM] As stated in Chapter 1, NVC serves to provide a context for communication, sometimes commenting on words. A quick smile, for instance, when discussing the disappearance of one’s children, provides additional info that defines the communication. Our voices, faces, and head gestures regulate turn-taking in conversations. And these all occur without words sometime, and thus the NVB becomes the main message themselves.

Q:  What are some common misconceptions about nonverbal communication?

A: [DM] The big misconception about NVB and deception is that averting one’s gaze or fidgeting is associated with lying. This belief is held across cultures. Studies have tested this hypothesis, and most do not support it. It is a myth. 

To read more from Dr. Matsumoto’s interview click here.